lawandorderfandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:31dot
See here for past discussions. If I contacted you on your talk page, please respond there to keep the discussion in one location. Jdogno7 Jdogno7 seems to have a problem with the usage of the term "antisemitism" and says it is inaccurate, as apparently Muslims are included in the Semite group. As a result, he believes the term should be "anti-Jew", which I highly disagree with. Whatever the facts are, "antisemitism" is being popularly defined as "extreme hatred or opposition of Jewish people". I have never seen any sources disputing the term and saying that it should be "anti-Jew". Jdogno7 has also said that he is Jewish, which leads me to believe there is a conflict of interest with his recent edits. I urge you to address this matter ASAP. Thank you. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:24, January 16, 2017 (UTC) :And Jdogno7 continues to have a problem with the terminology despite your input, and is littering my talk page with useless messages. Please do something about this. Thank you. :) UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:05, January 25, 2017 (UTC) To "31dot" Sorry if this is the wrong place to place this but only because the above was placed here, so I am answering it here. Jdogno7 (talk) 10:41, January 25, 2017 (UTC) To UnSub-Zero "I have never seen any sources disputing the term and saying that it should be 'anti-Jew".": See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism. Read the first two paragraphs of the etymology section. "Jdogno7 has also said that he is Jewish, which leads me to believe there is a conflict of interest with his recent edits.": I was trying to make a point of that someone who the subject of a term would know better whether such a term is being used accurately to describe themselves. But for the record I am Jewish. Considering that the association of the term with extreme hatred or opposition of Jews exclusively was promoted by someone who was neither Jewish nor accepting of Jews, does undermine its credibility to be used in such a context. Jdogno7 (talk) 10:41, January 25, 2017 (UTC) :As I've indicated, the term is being used as most people understand it. If you feel that society should use the term differently, you will need to take it up with society and not just this little corner of the internet. Until it is generally understood differently, the term should not be removed. 31dot (talk) 14:31, January 25, 2017 (UTC) Why not? If a term is used in an inaccurate manner even by the majority of the human populace, then those who are aware of the correct usage should try to encourage others to use it more accurately. Does not LAO SVU encourage the idea of overcoming ignorance? Jdogno7 (talk) 09:18, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Well, sorry to burst your bubble, but a Wikia like this one isn't the best place to start this kind of campaign. UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:15, January 28, 2017 (UTC) Now Jdogno7 is edit-warring on Charles Patton and Sam Reynolds by needlessly rewriting every "Rollins" into "Amanda". He has been giving very poor reasoning, saying it's more "precise" if we use her first name over her last name. But I don't see how, especially given she's more commonly referred to as Rollins and it would be more understandable to readers if Rollins is used. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:09, January 27, 2017 (UTC) "Now Jdogno7 is edit-warring on Charles Patton and Sam Reynolds by needlessly rewriting every 'Rollins' into 'Amanda'.": I am not edit-warring. I am merely presenting my points for my position on the matter. "He has been giving very poor reasoning, saying it's more 'precise' if we use her first name over her last name.": How is that poor reasoning? It is at times more precise to refer to her by her first name and not her last name. For one thing when talking about other members of the Rollins family. "But I don't see how, especially given she's more commonly referred to as Rollins and it would be more understandable to readers if Rollins is used.": As I said when talking about other members of the Rollins family would be more understandable. Amanda and Kim are both Rollins so they have to be distinguished by first name. Jdogno7 (talk) 09:11, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Now you're claiming a grammar issue in your edit summaries as reasoning, yet I do not see how the surnames affect grammar. Clearly what I mean when I say poor reasoning. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:02, January 27, 2017 (UTC) ::I explained it was adding an s to the end of Amanda'. That was all. Jdogno7 (talk) 11:30, January 27, 2017 (UTC) I am really starting to get ticked off by this guy. Please respond ASAP. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:26, January 27, 2017 (UTC) :Why? Because I still won't agree with you? Jdogno7 (talk) 11:32, January 27, 2017 (UTC) I highly urge you to restrict Jdogno7's access to his talk page while he's blocked. I was merely posting my opinion about if you should lift the block on him and he is constantly trying to suppress it by undoing my messages. He has also accused me of being a bully, even though I have a right to pitch my opinion in talk page discussions, which he denies exists. I am really sick of his behavior, and I would urge you to extend his block if I could as well. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:08, January 29, 2017 (UTC) Now he is being contradictory. He claims I'm bullying him, yet he keeps removing my messages on his talk page when I haven't removed any of his messages on his talk page or mine AT ALL. I find this guy so unbearable at this point. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:29, January 29, 2017 (UTC) :I'm of a mind to be like Wikipedia, where a user is permitted to remove content from their own user talk page- though it is considered an indication that they read it. 31dot (talk) 10:36, January 29, 2017 (UTC) :I would also recommend that you take a break from interacting with each other. Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until such a break is over and you can do so constructively. 31dot (talk) 10:46, January 29, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm afraid that might not be possible. It is in my understanding that he will edit the dispute I've been having with him at the Charles Patton http://lawandorder.wikia.com/wiki/Charles_Patton?action=history, Sam Reynolds (http://lawandorder.wikia.com/wiki/Sam_Reynolds?action=history), and Reese Taymor articles (http://lawandorder.wikia.com/wiki/Reese_Taymor?action=history). I don't feel obliged to ignore that. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:03, January 29, 2017 (UTC) :::I have also warned them against carrying on the dispute and if they do I will take action. 31dot (talk) 11:06, January 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::And guess what? He just undid my edits at Charles Patton and Reese Taymor. UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:54, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :::::If you have a problem with the changes I made, let us discuss them. Jdogno7 (talk) 06:17, February 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::::I don't care. Look at 31dot's post above. You were warned against carrying on the dispute I mentioned. UnSub-Zero (talk) 06:18, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :::::::"I don't care.": That sounds about right. "Look at 31dot's post above. You were warned against carrying on the dispute I mentioned.": No it was about the dispute over whether you had a right to post something on my talk page that I found to be harassing. Jdogno7 (talk) 06:28, February 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::"I would also recommend that you both take a break from interacting with each other(even after this block is over) until you are able to constructively. Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until that point." 31dot (talk) 10:48, January 29, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::Tell me, what does that sound like to you? UnSub-Zero (talk) 06:31, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::Well I suppose I thought we could try again to discuss the difference of opinion in a civilized manner, I was wrong. Jdogno7 (talk) 06:34, February 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::Well, too flipping bad. UnSub-Zero (talk) 06:37, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::Why so? Jdogno7 (talk) 06:39, February 5, 2017 (UTC) ::::::::::::You just disregarded an admin's order and now you could get blocked again for it. If so, happy trails. :) UnSub-Zero (talk) 06:41, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :::::::::::::"You just disregarded an admin's order and now you could get blocked again for it.": How did I disregard an admin's order? It is not my fault that you do not want to discuss this peacefully. Jdogno7 (talk) 06:47, February 5, 2017 (UTC) God, I can't believe you. What I just highlighted, THAT was the admin's order. What's going on at Charles Patton, Sam Reynolds, and Reese Taymor, that counts as a dispute because we clearly disagree on it. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:02, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :"What's going on at Charles Patton, Sam Reynolds, and Reese Taymor, that counts as a dispute because we clearly disagree on it.": Well let us try to resolve the dispute then. Jdogno7 (talk) 07:41, February 5, 2017 (UTC) ::I refuse. After everything you put me through, I have no intent on discussing matters with you. If there's one thing I hate, it's people trying to act like social justice warriors in an inappropriate place. Good luck not getting blocked. UnSub-Zero (talk) 07:51, February 5, 2017 (UTC) "I refuse.": Why? "After everything you put me through, I have no intent on discussing matters with you.": What have I put you through? "If there's one thing I hate, it's people trying to act like social justice warriors in an inappropriate place.": How am I acting like a social justice warrior? Jdogno7 (talk) 08:04, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :::I would further suggest that you tone down your attitude; there is no need to get so heated over a lightly used Wiki like this. The matter was only exacerbated with your hostile comments("this guy is ticking me off", "screw you") etc. 31dot (talk) 11:11, January 29, 2017 (UTC) UnSub-Zero I have been trying to resolve the disputes between myself and UnSub-Zero but the user has become completely unreasonable and unwilling to discuss things. Can I have some help please? Jdogno7 (talk) 08:28, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :Oh, ho ho ho, I'm the unreasonable one? You're the one who disregarded the admin's order first. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:33, February 5, 2017 (UTC) The order in question was" "I would also recommend that you take a break from interacting with each other. Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until such a break is over and you can do so constructively.": "I would also recommend that you take a break from interacting with each other.": That was a suggestion that I did take. "Please don't carry on any disputes or disputed edits until such a break is over and you can do so constructively.": You are focusing on the first part of the sentence. The part to focus on is "...until such a break is over and you can do so constructively.", it is not my fault that you can not do so constructively. Jdogno7 (talk) 10:56, February 5, 2017 (UTC) :Even so, the first part of the sentence is still applicable. You are not allowed to do that. UnSub-Zero (talk) 11:45, February 5, 2017 (UTC) ::You are using that part out of context of the entire sentence so that you don't have to argue your point further or admit your logic is faulty in any way. Jdogno7 (talk) 12:47, February 5, 2017 (UTC) *I'm tempted to block the both of you for being disruptive. If you two cannot discuss things with each other constructively, you should not interact with each other. I would very much like you each to do so voluntarily, but I will take action if needed. I have already resolved the issues brought up on this page and they should not be brought up again. 31dot (talk) 13:06, February 5, 2017 (UTC) ::Then by all means, please block both of us. Because I'm not going to stop unless he stops. UnSub-Zero (talk) 20:29, February 5, 2017 (UTC) "*I'm tempted to block the both of you for being disruptive. If you two cannot discuss things with each other constructively, you should not interact with each other. I would very much like you each to do so voluntarily, but I will take action if needed. I have already resolved the issues brought up on this page and they should not be brought up again. 31dot (talk) 13:06, February 5, 2017 (UTC)": Is that to do with this section of discussion because it was posted in the other one concerning UnSub-Zero? Jdogno7 (talk) 00:13, February 6, 2017 (UTC) :This page is such a mess now I'm not even sure. 31dot (talk) 02:23, February 6, 2017 (UTC) :It was referring to the general behavior here by both of you. I have already blocked UnSub-Zero because they indicated that they will continue to be disruptive. As long as you are not disruptive, it will not be necessary to block you. 31dot (talk) 02:26, February 6, 2017 (UTC) I have set up a discussion for the articles concerning Reese Taymor, Sam Reynolds and Charles Patton on their respective talk pages. Now what? Jdogno7 (talk) 08:04, February 6, 2017 (UTC) I would like a word with you... UnSubZero and I are having an argument over whether those who commit attempted murder falls under the category "attempted murderers" or "assailants". He states that attempted murder is a crime in itself, but I state that attempted murder nothing more than is a more violent form assault (with intent to commit murder), seeing as the victim survives either way. Those who commit manslaughter are still considered murderers, those who commit attempted rape are still considered sexual assailants. Why should those who commit attempted murder not be considered assailants? By the way, in Volunteers, Harold Morrissey was charged with second-degree murder when he attacked Roland Kirk but convicted of a lesser-included charge of second-degree assault. Just giving an example. I request to hear your opinions on the matter. TrainLubber (talk) 04:33, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :I disagree with the stance that anything "attempted" should fall under a category of "assault". Now, I don't know the proper term for someone who commits manslaughter, so until someone can find it or create it, I have no problem with classifying anyone who commits manslaughter a "murderer" because I don't believe there's anything better that we can use to label him or her. :But for the problem about "assault" versus "attempted murder", it is in my understanding that people can be charged with attempted murder over assault if it's clear that the defendant had every intent to commit murder in the first place (which I applied to any articles that I felt qualified for it). For example, Tom Cole was clearly intent on ambushing and killing Carisi, yet I feel assault doesn't cover it because, well, a gunshot to the head is clearly something that can threaten a life. The same goes for attempted rape, now that I think about it, but I'm not going to try just yet. :Also, I didn't see Volunteers, so I wouldn't know anything about that. UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:39, January 28, 2017 (UTC) ::Some assailants can be charged with both attempted murder and assault on the same victim, like Harold Morrissey was. True, the defendant can either be convicted of only one of those offenses under those circumstances or acquitted on both offenses, but regardless of whether it was assault or attempted murder, the victim survives. ::Furthermore, intent to commit murder is the only difference between assault and attempted murder. Sometimes the offense could be referred to as "assault with intent to commit murder" in other jurisdictions. TrainLubber (talk) 04:44, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :::Which is why I apply it to articles like Tom Cole, because this difference seems pretty clear-cut. "Assault" doesn't sound like an appropriate description for a premeditated act that clearly endangered the life of someone. There was clearly a distinction seen between assault and attempted murder, because I'm seeing separate definitions for both crimes. And does New York have this "assault with intent to commit murder" charge in its jurisdiction? UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:50, January 28, 2017 (UTC) ::::No, but not all Law & Order cases take place in New York. Some cases even took place outside the United States. And a number of jurisdictions refer to "attempted murder" as "assault with intent to commit murder". TrainLubber (talk) 16:55, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :::::Mind telling me which ones? UnSub-Zero (talk) 23:02, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :::I would also like to bring up courtroom shooter Christopher Rawlings as another golden example of an attempted murderer. He was working in tandem with Kyle Ackerman, who too was trying to kill and was successful in three cases. UnSub-Zero (talk) 05:02, January 28, 2017 (UTC) ::::It was my understanding that we only classified people based on what they were convicted of, or in some cases what was clearly seen(mostly CI episodes). 31dot (talk) 09:16, January 28, 2017 (UTC) ::::I would also request that this be discussed on an article talk page further, so I don't have twenty emails about this discussion. :) 31dot (talk) 09:32, January 28, 2017 (UTC) :::::Does this help? TrainLubber (talk) 19:16, January 29, 2017 (UTC) UnSub-Zero Can you please do something about UnSub-Zero? He keeps flagging pages like The Kira Stanger page and other pages for deletion. Thanks in advance 23:23, February 3, 2017 (UTC) :This is because these characters are not notable. They are just murder victims. UnSub-Zero (talk) 23:25, February 3, 2017 (UTC) : You were already given a warning by the admin to stop. And if you are going to flag a page for deletion, don't leave the reason blank, that's just lazy. 23:36, February 3, 2017 (UTC) :Stop with what? I was given no warning against tagging articles for deletion. UnSub-Zero (talk) 23:40, February 3, 2017 (UTC) ::UnSub-Zero can certainly, in good faith, tag pages they feel merit deletion as such(it would be helpful if a reason was given, though it would come out later anyway). Any other user is free to disagree and explain their reason on the article talk page- and I as an admin(or any admin) is free to evaluate the relevant discussion and make a determination. There really isn't any problem here. And by the way, if "S." wants to sign their posts with a username, they need to register one, if they haven't already. 31dot (talk) 00:03, February 4, 2017 (UTC) :Okay, now I'm thinking this IP user might be mocking me or something. First off, he/she undid my edit on Kira Stanger for no reason other than trying to erase the deletion tag so the article could be kept. Then, he/she tagged Kazy Tauginas (an article I created no less than an hour ago) for deletion, saying that the actor isn't notable because the character he played in Nationwide Manhunt isn't notable, even though I don't see how it counts because it's a proxy article. UnSub-Zero (talk) 04:14, February 5, 2017 (UTC) Again During this discussion on my talk page with Jdogno7 and another user, things got a little off-topic, but it led me to do a serious investigation about Jdogno7's history on Wikias, and I found something interesting: his accounts on the Harry Potter Wikia and the Digimon Wikia have been banned indefinitely, his account on the Legendary Journeys Wikia is still banned for a year, and he's been blocked at least once before on the Smallville Wikia. It seems he is edit-warring here and there, and to be more specific, he has been banned on the Harry Potter and Legendary Journeys Wikias for being picky about the selection of nouns. Just like how he was picky over saying "anti-Jew" in place of "antisemitic". I'm not recommending any specific action just yet, but I do want to make it clear, in writing, that there should be some more scrutiny on Jdogno7 and his edits, just in case something comes up in the future. Because TrainLubber and WarGrowlmon18 are both also at the end of their wits with this guy because of his most recent edits. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:04, February 16, 2017 (UTC) :Well neither TrainLubber, WarGrowlmon18 or UnSub-Zero have given a conclusive explanation for what I am supposed to have done wrong in terms of the edits I have made. Jdogno7 (talk) 09:45, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::I just said the reason why in my previous message. You're pretty much doing what you were warned not to do in other Wikias: switching nouns around to suit your needs. UnSub-Zero (talk) 21:11, February 16, 2017 (UTC) Now Jdogno7 is beginning to edit-war with TrainLubber about how to name Kim Garnet and tagging Kim for deletion. UnSub-Zero (talk) 08:18, February 17, 2017 (UTC) :If I was edit warring on Kim Garnet, it was not my intention. I will leave her article be from now until this is resolved. With the Kim disambiguation page, the tagging for deletion seems to be out of anger concerning this disagreement. Jdogno7 (talk) 09:42, February 17, 2017 (UTC) ::You were advised to go to the talk pages if you have any sort of disagreement. You didn't. This applies to any and all articles on here. UnSub-Zero (talk) 10:44, February 17, 2017 (UTC) Svufan23 Hey. I have persistently tried to contact Svufan23 about the quality of the character articles he's creating, but every time, he has not responded back and continues to create articles the same way he always does. I have gotten very tired and annoying at having to do much of the dirty work for him (i.e. creating the character templates and DEFAULTSORT tags). Can you do something about it, please? Thank you. UnSub-Zero (talk) 02:32, February 19, 2017 (UTC) Possible sock I have a feeling MikeyMunkvold might actually be a sockpuppet account of Mikemunk82, and not just based on the names alone. Not only did Mikemunk82 stop editing suspiciously, both users create Character templates through a bunch of unnecessary code, not by selecting the option and filling out all the necessary fields. UnSub-Zero (talk) 21:58, March 7, 2017 (UTC) :Given the gap in between when Mikemunk82 stopped editing (October 3, 2016) and when MikeyMunvold started (February 13, 2017) it seems more likely to me that they either forgot their login password and registered a new name, or otherwise just decided to use a new name. There doesn't seem to be malicious intent and they aren't using both names at the same time. 31dot (talk) 22:13, March 7, 2017 (UTC) ::Guess it wouldn't hurt to ask. UnSub-Zero (talk) 22:13, March 7, 2017 (UTC) Johnsonjack50 at it again Johnsonjack50 has once again done general nuisance editing at Sally Maxwell. He is also inserting gibberish into my talk page. Clearly he hasn't learned anything from his absence. UnSub-Zero (talk) 03:36, March 8, 2017 (UTC)